Both in France and in England (after 1066) the national
assembly began as a feudal council, composed of the prelates and barons who
held their lands and dignities directly from the Crown. But that of France was,
before the twelfth century, seldom convened, sparsely attended, and generally
ignored by the greater feudatories, a conference of partisans rather than a
parliament. In England the Great Council of the Norman dynasty, inheriting the
prestige and the claims of the Anglo-Saxon Witenagemot, held from the first a
more respectable position. Even a William I or a Henry II scrupulously adhered
to the principle of consulting his magnates on projects of legislation or
taxation; under the sons and grandson of Henry II the pretensions of the
assembly were enlarged and more pertinaciously asserted. The difficulties of
the Crown were the opportunity of Church and Baronage.
The Great Council now claimed
to appoint and dismiss the royal ministers; to withhold pecuniary aid and
military service until grievances had been redressed; to limit the prerogative,
and even to put it in commission when it was habitually abused. In fact the
English nobility of this period, thwarted as individuals in their ambitions of
territorial power, found in their collective capacity, as members of the
opposition in the Council, a new field of enterprise and self-aggrandisement.
In France there was no such parliamentary movement, because the fundamental
presupposition of success was wanting; because it was hopeless to appeal to
public opinion, against a successful and venerated monarchy, in the name of an assembly
which had never commanded popular respect. Under these circumstances it was
natural that very different consequences should ensue in the two countries,
when the reformation of their national assemblies was taken in hand by Edward I
and his contemporary, Philippe le Bel. The problem before the two sovereigns
was the same - to create an assembly which should be recognised as competent to
tax the nation.